3.29.2012

Dana Loesch on The Dana Show: "Progressives like the New Black Panthers."

Looks like race-baiting moron radio show host Dana Loesch is up to no good again.

From my tumblr blog, Justin's Political Corner:
Loesch and that caller are out of whack.


From the 03.28.2012 edition of KFTK's The Dana Show:


Transcript:
Caller: "I want to talk about-- I do not wish to happen. Do you think all the hatred from the media and the discontent coming out of Florida with the event of Trayvon Martin. Do you think that the media and the African-American people want a race war? Am I out of line by saying that they really want it to happen?"  
LOESCH: "I think..." 
Caller: "...think that they want to see it happen?" 
LOESCH: "Yeah, I think that some progressives, like the New Black Panther Party, definitely sounds like they kind of like they do."  
[...]
"Brian, I appreciate your call. I think that they want it-- progressives need it as a tool, they need it as a distraction. Those are the people who scream loudest about injustices to minority communities. These are also the same people who pass policies that present the greatest offense to minority communities. They complain-- progressives complain about the lack of jobs in certain depressed areas, but what are they doing to bring jobs to those areas?"

This lady (and her husband) sure has a history of race-baiting rhetoric.

3.23.2012

Dana Loesch has no clue about the facts, smears Détente and Boehlert

In her blogpost at Big Journalism today, Dana Loesch baselessly accused Media Matters For America's Senior Fellow Eric Boehlert of getting the dates wrong for Détente's song, Kill Rush. 


It was in response to my piece published last night on the media's choice to ignore the death threats against Rush Limbaugh by way of progressives's newest anthem, "Kill Rush." 
Boehlert was too quick to spin without actually checking the facts.
What's that date? March 6? Considering Facebook doesn't post the current year date, it's March 6 of this year, meaning just a couple of weeks ago.  

Eric was wrong on two counts: the song was posted to Youtube in 2011, NOT in 2010. Also, did you see that at the bottom?

They went back and tagged "Sandra Fluke" on their video. Boehlert's spin is that the video was posted in 2010 (it wasn't) and that it isn't in response to Limbaugh (they made it so).

The song was originally recorded in 2010, not 2011 or later. Yet another pathetic example of Boehlert Derangement Syndrome displayed by Loesch.

Boehlert, on twitter, took down Loesch's distortion of the dates:







Song:


Loesch wrote another blogpost regarding the band's controversial Kill Rush song.


I don't know what offends me more:the hackneyed, drop D insipidness, the wannabe-Kittie/Phil Anselmo front woman, or the actual lyrics to "Kill Rush." Or maybe the media's complete refusal to acknowledge it?  
Myspace is still around for bands like the ironically named Detente, oh, excuse me, DÉTENTE (ne faut pas oublier l'accent Français!). A quick scan of their Facebook profile shows they formed around when I was in kindergarten, got a touch of secondhand glory by opening for bigger bands (like Megadeth) in those groups's infancy, and then those bands went on to actually, you know, write good music and sell records. Bands like this are why people hate metal, most of which is structurally complex and difficult to play well. DÉTENTE has scored the most attention they'll ever receive in their lives (sadly, none of it will translate to album sales) because of a song they've written called "Kill Rush."  
Media Matters repurposed a three-year-old Limbaugh censorship/book burning campaign to try to drive the talker off the airwaves, when they're not distracted by calling for the censorship of everyone else with whom they disagree -- do you think they will take up a campaign to drive UUAAGH DÉTENTE off Facebook?


Dana, grow up.


Yet another right-wing moron, The Admiral at the Lake Minnetonka Liberty blog, suggested that all the members of Détente should be dead.

Yup. I am calling for the demise of all members of the shitty metal band called Detente.  Oh yeah, I’m “dead” serious. Just as serious as they are for calling for Rush Limbaugh to be killed. They even wrote and performed a song advocating it. Well, what goes around comes around. 
Funny thing about the left, Detente will be excused for exorcising their 1st Amendment rights, I will probably be labeled a hater, dangerous, an advocator of violence, hell, I might even get a knock on the door from the police or FBI. But when the left does it, “that’s different.” Well you know what? It’s not different. It’s time for us to take off the kid gloves and slap those leftist bitches in to submission. I’ve had enough of their crap, it’s time for pricks like this to pay the piper. 
And how about those leftist jackasses at Facebook and YouTube? Whenever some whiney leftist complains, the content is taken down and the user is banned. But as long as a leftist does it, it’s okay. Including advocating murdering someone. Hypocrisy and double-standards, that’s all the left is.
Typical far-right bully this blogger is by wanting to kill people for having the audacity to criticize Rush Limbaugh.



3.21.2012

Loesch and her cronies attack Media Matters and David Corn

Yet another day in the office for Breitbart.com hacks like Dana Loesch, Dan Riehl, Lee Stranahan, and others to lead the Media Matters Derangement Syndrome attacks. One of Loesch's henchmen, Dan Riehl, blogged in Big Journalism and falsely accuses "MMFA of assaulting Dana Loesch's right to free speech."


If there's anything shameful in what only antisemitic Media Matters apparently still feels is an ongoing Sandra Fluke debate, it's the way antisemitic Media Matters continues it's un-American, Soros-funded war on free speech in America. 
While they may be especially focused on coming for the Jews in certain areas, anyone on the Right is ultimately fair game for the crew at antisemitic Media Matters. As far as they're concerned, antisemitism is just fine, but if one dares speak out against a leftist policy of Barack Obama's, all bets are off and they will lie and stretch any truth to silence you. 
Yesterday's attack targets Big Journalism's Dana Loesch. Not coincidentally, Dana was written up at length today by Tricia Romano at the Daily Beast. Point being, if you're of the Right, the higher one's profile rises, the more vicious and dishonest are Eric Boehlert's and antisemitic Media Matters's attacks. 
Antisemitic Media Matters posts an audio clip of Dana Loesch's FM radio show. Listening to it, Dana talks about many associated topics. In between she discusses the left's war on religion by attempting to force the Catholic church to purchase and distribute birth control. That's the heart of the matter and little more.
Among several other related remarks, Loesch suggests House Speaker John Boehner "just got out of the tanning bed, he's a little bit dizzy," going on to ask if Boehner is "an agent for Obama." Now, are we supposed to take that literally, as Media Matters would suddenly like us to with regard to pretty typical talk radio comments on Sandra Fluke? No, of course not. 
What Media Matters is actually engaged in is a grossly un-American hate campaign to silence critics of the Left, Media Matters itself and Barack Obama. Such campaigns are as dirty and malignant and un-American as one might find on the Internet, or elsewhere. They deserve to be condemned, marginalized, if not wholly ignored, and little more. It's that they always come in a purely political context that makes them as pathetic, as they are un-American. If Media Matters, a reportedly bizarre and erratic David Brock and Eric Boehlert had their way, only those who agree with them would be allowed to speak in America. Now, back to your bunker, boys - and take merry little band of paid storm trooper hacks along with you.



No, Mr. Riehl, Loesch's "free speech" hasn't been assaulted because MMFA was right to call her out on her constant attacks against Sandra Fluke. And for the 10,000th time, Eric Boehlert and MMFA are NOT "Anti-Semitic."

MMFA:

Amid the controversy over Rush Limbaugh's misogynistic attacks on Sandra Fluke, CNN contributor Dana Loesch has aggressively pursued the right-wing campaign to bully the Georgetown law student. After announcing that she would call Fluke "whatever I want," Loesch has called Fluke a "nympho" and used her radio show and posts at Big Journalism to claim that Fluke "embarrass[ed] herself and her sex by ... discussing about how she has a huge inability to control her sexual urges."


From KFTK's The Dana Show:



Fluke Also Testified About The Need For Access To Contraceptive Medicine After A Woman Was Raped.  
From Fluke's testimony:
One student told us that she knew birth control wasn't covered, and she assumed that's how Georgetown's insurance handled all of women's sexual healthcare, so when she was raped, she didn't go to the doctor even to be examined or tested for sexually transmitted infections because she thought insurance wasn't going to cover something like that, something that was related to a woman's reproductive health. As one student put it, "this policy communicates to female students that our school doesn't understand our needs." These are not feelings that male fellow students experience. And they're not burdens that male students must shoulder. [Fluke testimony via Media Matters2/23/12]
For the truth about Sandra Fluke's testimony, click here

Loesch Falsely Accused Fluke Of "Discussing About How She Has A Huge Inability To Control Her Sexual Urges." Loesch addressed the controversy surrounding Limbaugh's misogynistic attacks on Fluke during the March 7 edition of her radio show, saying:
LOESCH: As the mother of sons, if I had a daughter who decided to embarrass herself and her sex by going before members of Congress on national television and discussing about how she has a huge inability to control her sexual urges, and thus needs a bailout, she needs individuals to pay higher insurance premiums so she can have free contraception at her university at which she is going by way of public funds apparently, that would to me would be more embarrassing than the act of what she's doing being called out for what it is listed as in the dictionary. That's just the hard truth of the matter.
Back in the days when women acted better in public, and they didn't go and discuss about how they had an absolute insatiable sexual appetite that needs a thousand dollars a year in order to prevent pregnancy, people did that because there was a consequence to talking about your sex life to such an extent publicly on national television. And apparently all those inhibitions are out the window. Nothing is sacred anymore and thus nothing is attractive or alluring, because everything is trashy, and I think Fluke's testimony before members of Congress has contributed to that. [KFTK, The Dana Show, 3/7/12]   


Loesch: Fluke Was "Embarrassing Herself Before Congress By Testifying That She Simply Cannot Stop Getting It On." In a March 2 Big Journalism post Loesch wrote:
More have admonished Limbaugh's description of Sandra Fluke than admonished a 30 year-old woman embarrassing herself before congress by testifying that she simply cannot stop getting it on and her inability to control her urges constitutes infringing upon everyone else for a bailout. [Big Journalism, 3/2/12
Loesch: Fluke "Wants To Be Able To Be As Promiscuous As She Wants To Be." During the March 2 edition her radio show, Loesch responded to a caller who said that Fluke should "change her career and go work at the Mustang Ranch out there in Vegas," and said:
LOESCH: Oh my gosh. That could be -- you know, I'm telling you, she's worried about money apparently instead of going and asking for the government. But see that's -- and, Mike, I appreciate your call -- it comes down because she doesn't want to have to pay her own bills, because she's an independent woman. She's an independent woman like that Destiny's Child song, but she doesn't want to take care of all of her own business, because that's what independent women do. Independent women expect the government, which is characterized as the old cartoon Uncle Sam, to take care of their financial needs. She wants to be able to be as promiscuous as she wants to be, and all of the accoutrements that go along with that, she wants those to be financed by the government, because that's what independent women do. [KFTK, The Dana Show, 3/2/12] 


Loesch: Fluke Is "Doing It More Than She's Studying In Law School. ... They Act Like They're Nymphos."  
On her radio show, Loesch said of Fluke: "She's doing it more than she's studying in law school. Is that why our -- is that why law sucks lately? Is that why we're having such a problem in our courts?" Loesch also said, "They act like they're nymphos. That's what they act like." [KFTK, The Dana Show, 2/28/12] 
loesch
She's a majorly insane moron.


Now, on to David Corn and his newest bookShowdown: The Inside Story of How Obama Fought Back Against Boehner, Cantor, and the Tea Party:

His book correctly explained how Fixed Noise exploited their gullible viewers (or at least a decent portion of their viewership) into believing that "Barack Obama is a Muslim."

Mackenzie Weiniger at Politico:
President Barack Obama blamed Fox News for his political woes in a private meeting with labor leaders in 2010, saying he was “losing white males” who tune into the cable outlet and “hear Obama is a Muslim 24/7,” according to journalist David Corn’s new book, “Showdown.” 

Corn writes that after the midterm elections, Obama told labor leaders in December 2010 that he held Fox partly responsible for him “losing white males.” 
“…Fed by Fox News, they hear Obama is a Muslim 24/7, and it begins to seep in…The Republicans have been at this for 40 years. They have new resources, but the strategy is old,” Corn recounted Obama as saying. 
Sean Hannity addressed Obama’s reference to Fox News on his radio show Monday, saying it “sounds like the president is very angry behind the scenes, very angry.” 
And, Hannity said, he wasn’t surprised Obama decided to pin the blame on Fox. “Now this is a guy who claims he never watches cable news and then he’s making this broad sweeping statement that’s false,” Hannity said.
“You always have Fox and talk radio to fall back on when all else fails,” Hannity added.
Bret Baier, the host of Fixed Noise's Special Report, misleadingly stated that "there were no examples of our hosts saying Barack Obama is a 'Muslim.'"  Totally false, as several FNC/FBN personalities (including Baier and his program) have questioned Obama's faith and alleged that he was a "Muslim", a "fake Christian," or even "[Godless] atheist."

Here are at least a few examples of FNC/FBN commentators disparaging Obama's religion:
Special Report On Obama: "Islam Or Isn't He?"  
During a June 2009 segment, Special Report aired a quote by Obama foreign policy adviser Denis McDonough, in which he talked about how Obama "experienced Islam on three continents" and spent part of his childhood in Indonesia with a Muslim father. Special Report included this question above the quote: "Islam Or Isn't He?" [Fox News, Special Report with Bret Baier6/3/09] 

On Fox, Donald Trump Claimed Obama's Birth Certificate "Maybe ... Says He Is A Muslim."  
On The O'Reilly Factor, frequent guest Donald Trump said:
TRUMP: Listen, I have a birth certificate. I have my birth certificate. And in fact, they said the one I gave yesterday wasn't good enough. So I actually got the one from the Health Department, which is the perfect one. Because they were saying the one I gave yesterday wasn't good enough, so I got the other. People have birth certificates. He doesn't have a birth certificate. He may have one but there's something on that, maybe religion, maybe it says he is a Muslim. I don't know. Maybe he doesn't want that. Or he may not have one. But I will tell you this. If he wasn't born in this country, it's one of the great scams of all time. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor3/30/11]

Fox Hosted "Conservative Comedian" Who Claimed Obama Is "Faking" Being Christian.  
Fox & Friends hosted "conservative comedian" Brad Stine, who said of the president: "If Santorum doesn't want to question his Christianity, I will, because he's not really part of that." Stine continued, "why can't Obama be slammed for faking [Christianity]?" [Fox News, Fox & Friends2/20/12] 

On Fox, Lars Larson Claimed Obama "Bows Down To Leaders Of ... Muslim Countries And Then He Disses Easter In His Own Country."  
On Fox News' America Live, guest host Shannon Bream stated: "The president and White House often seem very frustrated about these polling numbers that come out that show a significant amount of Americans question the president's faith and wonder whether he's truly Muslim, even though he says again and again he is a Christian." She then asked: "So is it fair for the White House to take a little heat that he didn't step up and be more vocal on Easter?" Radio host Lars Larson stated that Obama "is paying more attention" to Muslim holidays. 
Fox Nation Promoted Coulter's Claim That Obama Is An Atheist. 
On September 1, 2010, Fox Nation promoted a column by Ann Coulter claiming that Obama is an atheist, using the headline: "Obama Is Not A Muslim, But...." [Fox Nation, 9/1/10]
 
Fox & Friends Pushed False Smear That Obama Attended A "Madrassa." On the January 19, 2007, editions of Fox & Friends First and Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade, along with co-hosts Steve Doocy and Gretchen Carlson, spent several segments advancing a false report that then-Sen. Barack Obama was raised a Muslim and attended a madrassa, or Islamic school, as a child in Indonesia. At one point, Doocy asked: "When people find out this stuff, they're going to go, 'Why didn't anybody ever mention that that man right there was raised as -- spent the first decade of his life raised by his Muslim father as a Muslim and was educated in a madrassa?' " [Fox News, Fox & Friends Firstand Fox & Friends1/19/07]

From the 03.19.2012 edition of FNC's Special Report With Bret Baier:


Enter hack Dana Loesch: At her Big Journalism blog, she says Corn's assertions are "misleading and distracting from the fact that the Obama and Dems are failures."

I sense a feeling of spagetti-noodle strategy from Axelrod and Plouffe. They've thrown a number of possible bogeyman into the realm of public discourse to see what would stick. It was Bush, then Palin, then Fox News, then the tea party, then the phantom "War On Women," then Palin again, now we're back to Fox and the race card. The only people who cared about Barack Obama's ethnicity during the campaign was the Barack Obama campaign 

They're doing it again with Corn because every other tactic they've tried to distract the public from the disastrous results of Obama's leadership have utterly failed. The class warfare failed, the trumped-up "War On Women" is a failure, and polls are numerous in echoing the public's lack of confidence in his capability to deal with the economy or gas prices. No one cares. Corn's book would have been a tired cliché during the campaign; released now just makes it all the more comedically desperate. 
Ms. Loesch, you have lost this round to David Corn, and he's more truthful than you.


3.19.2012

On Big Journalism, Dana Loesch is still whining about "MSM covering up OWS rapes"

Yet again, we have the biased as hell and deranged crazy lady Dana Loesch trashing the Occupy Wall Street Movement. In her blogpost at Big Journalism, she again falsely accused the "'mainstream media' of covering up OWS rapes."


I've been following the story of Michael John Kobulnicky, a reported former tea partier who stands accused of rape: 
Lemon Grove resident Michael John Kobulnicky, 50, a leader in the San Diego Tea Party and former regional director of the Southern California Conservative Party, is under arrest for allegedly kidnapping and raping a local woman on Fiesta Island.
“He dragged her out of the car and sexually assaulted her pretty brutally,” San Diego Police Lt. Andra Brown told ECM news partner 10 News in late February, shortly after the February 25 assault occurred. 
He is charged with rape, kidnapping, and forcible sex with a foreign object.  Evidence includes surveillance video shot at a local convenience store shortly before the kidnapping occurred.  Kobulnicky is being held without bail pending arraignment on Monday.  
Despite media reports, his involvement in the San Diego Tea Party has been forcefully rejected
Some progressive talking heads seem gleeful at the misery of Kobulnicky's alleged victim. Progressive media has stopped short of crowing over it; I guess I missed the part where they condemned the over 300 counts of criminality and violence from OWS before pointing fingers. Additionally, how can Occupiers possibly recognize this as rape when they've spent the past six months denying the documented rapes that happened in their own encampments? Even now they're focused on denying the lastest Occupy rape in New Haven.  
May I be frank? If Kobulnicky is proven guilty of crime with which he is charged, let the bastard rot.  
Whether or not Kobulnicky is a tea partier is irrelevant because tea partiers condemn all rape regardless.  

You'll recall how Keith Olbermann refused to acknowledge that documented (with police records) rapes occurred at OWS events by OWS protesters. In fact, he even defended one case involving the rape of a minor by saying he was sure it was "consensual sex." (That Keith Olbermann apparently believes the forcible vaginal penetration of an unwilling victim is "consensual" says more about his views on sex than he realizes.)


Teabaggers don't condemn rape? Baloney in this particular instance. And OWS does NOT condone rape either, much to the chagrin of Loesch and her enablers.. And Current TV's Keith Olbermann was right in that the alleged "OWS rapes" were NOT done by the OWS people, but outsiders and teabagger agitators. This is the kind of crap Dana peddles regularly regarding OWS.


Another member of the Loesch/Breitbart Axis of Evil, Lee Stranahan, baselessly accuses OWS protestors of "asking for violence with police."


The Occupy Movement sprung back into public view last night the only way they knew how--by staging a violent clash with police on the streets. Like a spoiled child who has learned that throwing a temper tantrum is the only way to get attention, the movement used the confluence of the six-month anniversary of the start of Occupy Wall Street and the intoxicated party atmosphere of St. Patrick’s Day to launch an attempted re-taking of Zuccotti Park. The move was predictable because Occupy had openly discussed a few weeks ago that they needed more ‘direct actions’ as way to refill their dwindling financial coffers. 
This is the Occupy Business Plan: antagonizing the police is good for business and will be supported by the media. And, unfortunately, the Obama administration.
And spring hasn't even started yet.



3.16.2012

Loesch falsely accuses the Dems of "playing political games with VAWA"

On TeaNN's Erin Burnett OutFront, "contributor" Dana Loesch was spewing a number of falsehoods regarding the Violence Against Women Act, including the defense of fellow St. Louis nutjob Phyllis Schlafly


From the 03.15.2012 edition of CNN's Erin Burnett OutFront:


Transcript:
BURNETT: All right, John Avlon is with us. (INAUDIBLE) Elise Jordan is a former speechwriter for Condoleezza Rice also joins us and Dana Loesch, CNN contributor -- all right, great to see all of you with us. Let me start with you Dana.
It is something everyone thought would be over by now. I mean and it was interesting, he was actually talking about Newt Gingrich (INAUDIBLE) I wouldn't want to presume to tell Newt Gingrich what to do, but I thought it would be over by now. And you know sort of it seemed like he was saying that maybe Newt should get out although he didn't directly say it. 
DANA LOESCH, EDITOR, BIGJOURNALISM.COM: Well there are a lot of individuals, Erin that are wondering whether or not Newt Gingrich should get out of the race. But at the same time, I was having a conversation with a friend a little bit earlier and we were discussing how the primary is a really good racket because the longer you stay in the longer you can really push to get higher speaking fees and maybe book deals and so on and so forth, but at this time, the delegate math. I just don't know if Newt Gingrich can make it happen, where it concerns delegate math. The fat lady is definitely warming up and everybody's been talking about this proverbial fat lady for a long time now. But it is -- you know it is different because the Super Tuesday this primary cycle, we had like 10 contests, but the Super Tuesday back in 2008, there were like 20, 21 contests -- 
BURNETT: Right.
LOESCH: -- so it is scheduled a little differently and it feels a lot longer. 
BURNETT: Well I think Elise we've all learned a lot of lessons, whatever your political party may be about how to not schedule a primary season. What about this video though that the Obama campaign is putting out? Seventeen minutes, Tom Hanks narrated, Academy Award winning producer, a real image of a documentary, even though of course it is a campaign ad. 
(CROSSTALK) ELISE JORDAN, FORMER SPEECHWRITER FOR CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Well I think it's pretty striking that the message seems like it's going to be disaster averted. Nothing really bad is happening in contrast in '08, where it was change you can believe in. And this video, he paid you know 300,000 for it. I think back in '08, someone in Hollywood would have done it for free. And I think that he's just very different phase in terms of how his supporters are getting behind him. 
BURNETT: Kony's video has 100 million plus views, John Avlon. Will President Obama's video get that many views? 
AVLON: The bar has been set. I'm going to say no in terms of that. I mean look this is a highly produced campaign video. Elise (ph) makes an interesting point though is that this is actually saying that wow, storm clouds were coming, we averted a disaster. It's not a narrative of triumph. It's a narrative of what could have been much worse.
BURNETT: All right. Let's talk about this issue about women. I mean this is becoming a bigger and bigger conversation and now of course you've got the act -- the violence against women act that Senate Democrats want to put forth legislation from 1994. They say it's finally time. Elise they, at the time, it was broadly bipartisan. Now, there are some Republican opposition to parts of it including would-be immigrants allowing you to say well if you're being used, you could get a visa. Republicans don't like that. 
(CROSSTALK) 
JORDAN: You can take it one of two ways, anti-women or anti- immigrant, whichever way you want to see it because their opposition is towards 5,000 u-visas (ph) that are given to the worst victims of domestic violence and those -- that's you know how many visas were given last year, they're up to 10,000 that can be given a year. It's a very small percentage of the nearly 5,000 visas we give a year. 
BURNETT: Right.
JORDAN: So they can say yes, it's about immigration, but really I think it's just this backlash against women that we're hearing a rhetoric that just really isn't very helpful. 
BURNETT: Yes, Dana, I mean how can justify voting against this bill? 
LOESCH: Well -- 
BURNETT: I'm not saying you would. I'm asking you hypothetically.
(CROSSTALK) 
BURNETT: I'm sorry if it came out that way. 
(CROSSTALK) LOESCH: No, well I mean this is -- this is -- I think it's very brilliant maneuvering on the part of Senators Leahy and Schumer because they realize this is where they need to take the conversation in order to appeal to their base, but the problem is as Senator Grassley had pointed out is that you know in the past this had been unanimously approved, the reauthorization of this. I think it was back in like 2006 I think was the last reauthorization. But because of all of the provisions tacked onto it and Grassley, Senator Grassley's concern, his chief concern is that there are no safeguards listed this time with this. 
I mean you know definitely people don't like to see violence against women and I know Phyllis Schlafly has a really good op-ed about this, about the act itself over at TownHall.com. But Grassley's concern was that there is no safeguards and this -- it is very easy to commit fraud in this system. There are no safeguards with this, the definition is very loose, it's very broadly defined and so the amendment that Grassley had put forward was to kind of -- was to remedy this. 

BURNETT: John Avlon, I mean does it make sense to keep the immigration part in? I mean regardless of what you think about the issue, I think it's outrageous that someone was offended by it or not. We should be able to pass the violence against women act without having it turn into a conversation about contraception or immigration or whatever it is that may be your sticking point. 
AVLON: That's right and let's be clear. I mean this is a political maneuver by Democrats, but it's a very smart one. 
BURNETT: Right.
AVLON: There's a bill that had broad bipartisan support in the past to some proposals that are now controversial. And the fact that it now includes same-sex couples is one of the things that some conservatives find very, very troubling and offensive. But you know the question is whether Republicans are going to let that agenda drive them into this trap in effect and let this narrative deepen because it's been -- it's a part of a pattern and that's the point I think Democrats are trying to surf off of. From Planned Parenthood fights on down, this narrative exists because it reflects a fissure, a fault line within the Republican Party. 
BURNETT: It seems to show, Elise, too that the Republican Party -- we talk about why the Obama administration has put out a 17-minute video, because they think they have lost control over their narrative. The Republican Party certainly seems to have lost control over the women's narrative. 
JORDAN: Definitely and I think what Rush did, his comments were so harmful to the entire health care debate to Republicans philosophical opposition to Obamacare and what -- by using that kind of vitriolic language, it just -- it totally destroyed -- it made the whole argument against for having Obamacare more attractive. 
BURNETT: All right, well thanks very much to all three of you. We appreciate it. Well you have heard the slogan, if you see something, say something. Well now a few police departments across the country like in Grapevine, Texas are taking the campaign to a whole new level. Take a look at this. 

Loesch, was lying as usual.

On her blog at Big Journalism, she baselessly accused "Democrats of starting a new war on women" and "playing games with WAWA."


A batch of new polls released this week confirmed the Democrats's worst nightmare: the majority of Americans strongly disapprove of the way in which the President is handling the economy and gas prices. The findings were a blow to a party that for weeks has pandered to women with the trumped-up bogeyman of an all-white male Republican party who wanted to gobble up all their birth control pills. The fabricated War on Women failed, and failed hard. Not ones to give up easily, Senators Schumer and Leahy devised another tactic: playing checkers with the Violence Against Women Act.  
The reauthorization of the VAWA is unanimously approved every year since the it was passed in 1994; the latest reauthorization was in 2006. This year there is resistance and Democrats are anxious to exploit the resistance from Republicans. Why is the GOP resisting? The language of the VAWA has remained the same throughout both Republican and Democrat congresses, except now. 
Democrats trotted out Sandra Fluke because the visual of President Obama verses a bunch of religious folk wasn't the bestoptic, but a woman against the progressive stereotype of a Republican was. (Rhetorical: is it "War On Women" to present them as victims and use them for messaging?) Unfortunately, Fluke didn't work out because a woman complaining of an annual $1k birth control bill when $9 per month birth control exists at places like Target and Costco doesn't cut a sympathetic figure. The polls cited above prove that the strategy to deflect from the economy didn't work, the attempt to frame radio talk host Rush Limbaugh as the "de facto leader of the Republican party" (rhetoric that's been around since I was in high school) failed and now his ratings are at an all-time high 

Democrats are now in damage control mode. The NYT assists by burying poll numbers; David Axelrod appeared on CNN last night prior to my appearance, wherein he parroted the "de facto" talking point and tried to portray Mitt Romney, the most moderate Republican in the race who was formerly vehemently pro-choice, as part of the "War On Women." It was a deflection from Erin Burnett's question: if he planned to petition the Obama super PAC to return the $1 million dollar donation from Bill "c*nt," "tw*t" Maher (his words, not mine). Axelrod declined, saying that Maher was "different," which apparently makes it OK. The difference is that Maher is a progressive and donated a million dollars. 
Their message should focus on the shock of why Democrats, who claim to so strongly care for the well-being of women, would dare use federal assistance to victims of domestic violence as a political pawn? The answer is, of course, to score points in a battle to keep the public's attention off of their incumbent's abysmal record.  


No, you lying little fartknocker, it's the REPUBLICAN Party that's using VAWA as a political pawn, NOT the Democrats. People like Loesch and her cronies are attacking Sandra Fluke for trivial reasons.

The REAL facts (not the RWNJ spin) on WAWA, via the Huffington Post's Nancy K. Kaufmann:

Until this year, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was the poster child for bipartisanship. First passed in 1994 under the leadership of then-Senator Joe Biden, it garnered overwhelming support when it was reauthorized in 2000 and again in 2005. Now, however, it too has become politicized, a casualty of the culture wars. Although the legislation to reauthorize VAWA (S 1925) still has bipartisan sponsors, it was recently voted out of committee in the Senate 10-8 on a strict party-line vote and final passage is by no means certain. 
This year's reauthorization bill, introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Mike Crapo (R-ID), seeks to ensure that VAWA includes protections and services for all victims, regardless of who they are or what their abusers look like. It addresses the unique needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) victims, and those of immigrant victims, foreign brides, and Native women residing on tribal lands. All these populations have, thus far, been denied the full power of VAWA. 
LGBTQ people encounter domestic violence at the same rate as the general population, yet a survey by the New York City Anti-Violence Project reported that in 2010 nearly half were turned away from domestic violence shelters and more than half of LGBTQ survivors were denied orders of protection.  
Immigrant women without legal status are especially vulnerable to abuse, since going to the authorities carries with it the risk of deportation while the abuser may go free. 
Finally, the bill would increase access to justice for Native women living on tribal lands. The numbers are stunning. Native women are 2.5 times more likely than other U.S. women to be battered or raped. One-third of Native women will be raped in their lifetimes. Two-fifths will experience the tragedy of domestic violence. And, their legal situation greatly complicates their access to justice. VAWA reauthorization would give tribes the authority to prosecute misdemeanor domestic violence-related crimes when the abuser lives or works in the jurisdiction of the tribe, or is the spouse or intimate partner of a tribe member. It is time to close the gaps in the law to ensure that rapists and abusers cannot commit crimes against Native women with impunity. 
Reauthorization of VAWA is imperative. The costs to victims and their families and to society are too large to ignore. Opponents of VAWA are trying to make its renewal part of an ongoing culture war in which the needs of women have been buried in an avalanche of rhetoric that devalues women's lives in the service of an ideological, partisan agenda. 
The GOP is desperate to try anything to appease the ultra-right base of the party, which will hurt them come general election time.

Also, Loesch has falsely accused Media Matters For America's Eric Boehlert of being "like David Duke" and being "anti-Semitic." In fact, Boehlert (a mainstream liberal) and Duke (a far-right white nationalist) are complete opposites.

3.13.2012

Loesch: "Majority of Americans disapprove of Obama"

Dana Loesch yet again being a hypocrite. She still believes the "War On Women is made-up by the left to distract from the issues." Wrongo!

Big Journalism:


A trio of polls released yesterday shows the harsh reality from which the embattled President Obama and the media hoped to deflect by fabricating a "War on Women."  
The newest Washington Post/ABC poll shows that the majority of Americans strongly disapprove of the way in which the President is handling a number of issues, chief among them the economy and gas prices. According to the March 10th, 2012 poll released yesterday a net 50% of those surveyed disapprove of how Obama is handling the job of president with 39% "strongly disapproving" and only 28% "strongly approving." This is up from the net 46% taken on February 4th of the same year.
On the economy, 50% "strongly disapprove" whereas only 20% "strongly approve" of the President's management. His negatives greatly outweigh his positives on everything from his handling of Iran, the budget deficit, Afghanistan, and on "the situation with gas prices" where 52% "strongly disapprove" of his job performance. It represents an increasing trend. 
The latest New York Times/ CBS News poll:
At a time of rising gas prices, heightened talk of war with Iran and setbacks in Afghanistan, Mr. Obama’s approval rating dropped substantially in recent weeks, the poll found, with 41 percent of respondents expressing approval of the job he is doing and 47 percent saying they disapprove — a dangerous position for any incumbent seeking re-election.
The last of the trio comes from Rasmussen which illustrates how a full 59% of the country view Obama as "more liberal" than they are themselves.
It's a bad day for optics in the White House, and a bad day for the administration's strategy of deflecting from these awful truths with an elaborately-staged press conference on contraception designed to divert attention away from a two-pronged failure: the attack on the free practice of religion by way of abridging employers's freedom to choose faithfully against providing "free" contraception, and the sinking confidence in the President concerning his mismanagement of the nation's economy and energy policies.  
These polls show that the administration's weeks-long assault with a trumped-up narrative has failed. The administration's "hurt and rescue" (cause a problem while simultaneously pretending to be the savior from the problem while acting as though your actions are mutually exclusive) tactic has failed in that the predictability and sheer silliness gave it away.  
Many women see as a greater threat to their freedom the administration's insistence that employers -- many of whom are also female -- compromise their religious beliefs to provide for the contraceptive choices made freely by other women, women who can empower themselves by paying for their choices themselves. It's not "feminist" to demand that another woman carry the yoke of your free choices. Women see it as a threat the administration's refusal to ease the higher costs at the pump, costs which eat away at our budget for groceries, summer clothes for our children, and bills which go towards providing rooftops over our families' heads. We also see it as a threat to our families the administration's failure to provide clear objectives in Afghanistan while our family members overseas perform their duties in the scorching heat as our President authorizes more of our grocery money towards propping up a publicly-financed and US trained Afghan military.  
If we're going to talk about a "war on women," the only one I see is the one above, the policy decisions I've listed -- and I could enumerate further.  


Polling will likely change a lot between now and November, so there will be fluctuations like these.
For Ms. Loesch to claim that "Obama's approval numbers are tanking rapidly," that may be partially true, depending on the poll source. Of course Repubmussen's most recent poll has President Obama with negative approvals, with -5 (47-52, Against) differential. ABC/WaPo poll has him at -4 (46-50, Against).  On the other hand, Gallup's most recent poll has Obama at +6 differential (49-43, Favor), as does the NBC/WSJ Poll (50-45, Favor) at +5. The RCP Average w/ Rasmussen has him at -0.8. RCP average w/o Rassmussen has him at (46.5-46.3, Favor) +0.2.
Obama Job Approval Average via RCP:
Tweets by @JGibsonDem